Terri Schiavo passed away today, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed. An autopsy will be performed.
I think this New York Times editorial expresses my feelings on her death well enough that I have little to add.
Some people hold religious convictions so heartfelt that they could not bow to public opinion or the courts and accept the fact that Ms. Schiavo should be allowed to die. They deserve respect, just as her husband and her family members deserve sympathy. The frightening thing about the case was that other people, far more powerful and far less emotionally involved, looked at the world we live in today, in which politics is about maximizing hysteria at the margins, and concluded that the fight was one that would pay off in worldly terms as well.
But today, finally, there is a moment of consensus. Rest in peace, Theresa Marie.
But please, read the whole thing before commenting.
Pax vobiscum et requiescat in pace
Nice to see that the courts were strong enoguh to allow Terri Schiavo’s wishes for her life to be respected rather than the governments.
On the other hand, the Pope wishes to be sustained. That is his choice and should be respected as well.
I thought the vermin on this board focused on bitching about Washington State Liberal issues?
As usual, the fringe religious fanatics involved in the Schiavo case refused to let her Rest in Peace.
I was outraged this morning when I saw some Schindler family priest and lawyer on TV ranting and raving against Michael Schiavo just a few moments after his wife passed away.
Those fanatics could care less about Terri or anything except their bitter anti-religious religious fanaticism.
One only hopes that the American public sees these outrageous characters for what they really are.
I was personally heartened to see the column by former conservative Sen. John Danforth in the NY Times as well as the sweeping condemnation of those fanatics (including the Congress and both Bushes) by 11th Circuit Court Justice Birch — himself an arch right-wing conservative, calling their actions totally unconstitutional.
American politics has no place in it for religious fanaticism.
It would be good, by the way, if you give a link to the Danforth column. It’s wonderful reading.
Nelson,
Great… More anti-family religion hating crap being promoted in America.
When will you freaks realize that this country was founded by religious communities? It’s part of our heritage. It is without a doubt the right of the Schindler family to have a Ppriest by their side at this time of need.
If you don’t like it, ignore it. However, if you have a problem with it you should shut the fuck up.
The big question in my mind, and from watching Hannity & Colmes last night in Mel Gibson’s mind, is are we going to view this as a president for legal euthenasia like what countries in Europe have?
Jack Kevorkian is laughing at the American people saying I told you so, are we going to prove him right or was this just a singular judgement? Personally I think it will turn out to be something more malignant than most have given it credit to be.
Black & White:
Certainly letting someone starve to death (or die of thirste) is the most barabaric thing one could have done.
Rev. John J. Paris, SJ:
Q. So you’re saying providing Schiavo with food and water is not morally obligatory?
A. For 400 years the Roman Catholic moral tradition has said that one is not obliged to use disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain life.
Q. And in this case, you view this as disproportionately burdensome?
A. Fifteen years of maintaining a woman [on a feeding tube] I’d say is disproportionately burdensome, yes.
Q. But is anyone arguing that for Schiavo to die would be an “unmitigated evil”? They just don’t want her death to happen unnecessarily.
A. It’s not happening unnecessarily. It’s happening because her heart attack has rendered her utterly incapable of any future human relationships.
prr @ 3
It is a web log, dip shit. The topics are whatever Goldy wants them to be.
prr @ 7
Yeah I found that the most ironic of all that they would let a defensless woman die in such a way, but not let that be a means for capital punishment because it is too inhuman.
PRR @5 & 7
First, the removal of feeding tubes from individuals who have no brain functions is no more barbaric than removal of a life support (breathing apparatus) system is. One results in death by “starvation” and the other death by suffocation. If barbarism is your concern, execution by electrocution or lethal injection is certainly more barbaric, since those individuals are usually quite healthy.
Notwithstanding that foolish comment of yours, however, is your other foolish comment, in #5, talking about my comments being “anti-family religion hating crap,” and that this country was “founded by religious communities.”
Nothing could be further from the truth, in both cases. I am extremely pro-family religion, and was outraged at the anti-family commentary by that priest on TV who professed support for the Schindler family and ranted and raved and screamed at Terri’s husband Michael.
What kind of pro-family religion is that, to take one side of a family against another in the time of grief? Aren’t you the same bunch of right-wing characters who talk all the time about the “sanctity of MARRIAGE?” Isn’t the husband — to all of you — the most IMPORTANT member of the family?
(Except of course when it doesn’t suit your fanaticism purpose).
VIVA LA HYPOCRICY!!!!
And just a brief historical note about the country founded by “religious communities,” as you claimed. NOT!!!! The New World may have been originally settled in the 17th Century by a variety of “religious communities” escaping persecution, but the COUNTRY (we call it the United States) was founded (in the late 18th Century) as a rebellion against totally secular abuses of the English Crown (remember Taxation Without Representation, or the Boston Tea Party? What “religion” did that come from?)
In truth, virtually all of our founding fathers were adamantly opposed to organized religion having any place in the American government. You might read Jefferson and Madison — the authors of both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution — for confirmation. They were both horrified at the thought of religion having ANY role in government.
B&W @ 6,
This case is not a precedent for anything. The courts made a finding that this is what Terri wanted, and they upheld her right to discard with the life support. People make use of their rights to accept or deny life support every day.
Geez, I remember when Republicans were all about getting the government OUT of the lives of individuals.
Nelson.
Horseshit….
You are just jumping on this pussy, far left, band wagon of saying “all religion is bad” I am offendded by Christmas (C word?), Easter, etc…
Grow some fucking balls and then some brains. If you don’t like religion, ignore it, but stop this religion hating crap that is the flavor of the month.
Look at the basic structure of cities and towns throughout our country.
The center piece of the vast majority of communities in this country is a church. With a town hall, post office etc… surrounding it.
Look at the history of the Jamestown Settlement, Rhode Island, Mass Bay Colonies, etc…
Yes, there are directions this counry has taken to seperate the church and state. However, more of this has taken place in the past 20 years than in any time in our countries history.
Quite Frankly, you spout off at the mouth talking about the seperation of Church and state. Yet, I would bet good money that your sorry ass would be hard pressed to tell the dates of the American Revolution without doing a google search.
Nelson @ 10
Once again the left tries to insert grey into what is black and white in an attempt to mar the lines of right and wrong.
“What kind of pro-family religion is that, to take one side of a family against another in the time of grief? Aren’t you the same bunch of right-wing characters who talk all the time about the “sanctity of MARRIAGE?” Isn’t the husband – to all of you – the most IMPORTANT member of the family?”
He has commited adultery, lived with that woman and created a bastard child with her, Yeah seems like a good christian relationship that needs our support, OR NOT! I don’t see him grieving too much now that he sees the dollar signs of his soon to be fulfilled life insurance policy on Terri, hopefully the insurance company has more sense than you do.
prr @ 12
Look at the basic structure of cities and towns throughout our country. The center piece of the vast majority of communities in this country is a church. With a town hall, post office etc… surrounding it.
Of course, in Minnesota and Wisconsin, every town has two bars kitty-corner from each other at the central town intersection. I guess the upper mid-west is founded on a religion of “spirit” worship.
B&W @13 Ok, I’ll actually agree with you that there is no grey in this one as to Terri’s condition. Every reputable doctor said she was in a permanent vegatative state which no one has EVER recovered from beyond 2 months. The husband hoped for a miracle for 5 years, but the sad fact was his wife died that day though her body was kept alive by technology.
Are you married? I don’t know about you, but I would want my wife to find whatever love and happiness in this life should something like that happen to me. Would you want otherwise for your spouse?
PRR @12
You obviously don’t know the first thing about the founding of our country. Separation of Church & State is the FIRST AMENDMENT to the US Constitution, which tells you how important it was in 1790.
Several years before that, James Madison took on Patrick Henry and a bunch of other right wing religious fanatics in the Virginia General Assembly (the Colonial Legislature, for your information, since it’s apparent you know almost nothing about the country’s founding) with his famous paper entitled “Memorial & Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment.” It was published in 1785, prior to the ratification of the US Constitution.
Here is a key quote from Madison’s statement, which gives full evidence of what he thought about organized religion — particularly Christianity:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” If you want a link to the entire document, here is one: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/...../memor.htm
Try reading and understanding some American history before you start posting on a board populated by intelligent people.
Nelson, Let’s look at this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You show me where this says that a priest cannot represent a family of a dying daughter or for that matter for the majority of people to worship, publicly?
Roger Williams founded Rhode Island on religious freedom. Puritans settled New England. Roman Catholics settled in Maryland. Anglicans settled Virginia. William Penn’s “Society of Friends” settled Pennsylvania on religious freedom and welcomed others including Lutherans. Jews settled in New York and Rhode Island. Religious freedom was not on everyone’s mind. They came to America because their homelands persecuted them as religious fanatics. Once they got to America, everyone persecuted each other as badly, or worse, than back in Europe.
Our founding fathers rightly decided to frame a secular government separate from any church, not to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the state. The state has no place being involved in the Terri Schiavo’s case, it’s between her family and her church.
Rest in Peace Terri.
PRR @12
Too bad you don’t know the first thing about the founding of this country. The Separation of Church & State is embodied in the FIRST AMENDMENT to the US Constitution, indicating how important the founding fathers thought it was.
And in fact, James Madison, the author of the Constitution, wrote the definitive essay AGAINST religion — particularly Christianity — in America even before the Constitution was ratified. It was in 1785, in order to stop a bunch of right wing religious fanatics led by Patrick Henry in the Virginia General Assembly, that he wrote his famous “Memorial & Remonstrance Against Religion.”
One of the key passages in the essay is this one, which states clearly what the author of the US Constitution thought about Christianity:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
If you wish to learn some real American history, and want to read Madison’s commentary on religion and government in its entirety, here’s a link to it: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/...../memor.htm
Next time you want to post on a web that has intelligent readers, you might want to bone up on your topic of choice!
Ninid @ 15
I agree that I would want my wife to find happiness after my death however my wife and I have Values that Michael lacks. As I have a Christian background I wouldn’t commit adultery, and neither would my wife, we would divorce and re-marry the other person in the picture. your logic is failing to weigh all Michael’s flaws, if he would cheat on the woman he “loves” rather than divorcing her, then who is to say what he wouldn’t do if someone waived a settlement in his face.
make that 16, sorry
B&W @20 I am glad to see that you and your wife are morally superior to Mike. Congrats! As to the money issue, it generally is not a good idea to get your information from Fox News on these issues.
Fact is, he had no monatary interest in her death and he spent the money he did get putting himself through nursing school so he could take care of her. When the issue was brought up by the parents – who, btw, fell out with Michael only when they didn’t get the cut of the settlement money they demanded – Michael offered to give up all the money.
Whats more, Michael was offered $11,000,000 to simply walk away and he turned them down cold. This was not about the money.
As for me, I don’t presume to judge others in such extreme circumstances. Both the parents and Michael have undoutably had their ugly moments through this and compassion is certainly in order for everyone.
Well, that is not true… the hypocritical Republicans who wanted to blow this issue up for political gain deserve nothing but scorn and shortened political careers.
prr @ 18
“You show me where this says that a priest cannot represent a family of a dying daughter … publicly?”
Unbunch you briches and read Nelson @ 4 again. Nelson never suggested that a priest cannot represent a family. He did not even say the priest had no right to say what he said. Nelson was exercising his first ammendment rights to be publically “outraged” at the (protected, free) speech of the priest.
Frankly, I think the priest is an asshole. But, I don’t give a rats ass whether he was a priest, a lawyer, a friend, a liberal icon, a conservative icon, or a member of the mafia. It was tasteless irrespective of the messenger.
B&W @20 Sorry if that first sentance came out a bit harsh… I am just pretty ticked at all the people who are presuming to morally judge this man from afar. Even if any of us knew him, that would not be our place.
DJ @ 24?
And what about my right to free speech?
Or does that stop when I say that Nelson is a little bitch?
Ninid @ 25
“I am just pretty ticked at all the people who are presuming to morally judge this man from afar. Even if any of us knew him, that would not be our place.”
What gives us the right to say that terri had to die, and yet not morally question her husband and his motives? that is a hypocricy.
Nindid @ 23
Finally, someone making sense.
This was between Michael and his wife.
Quite frankly it has nothing to do with politics, the law, etc….
prr @ 26
“And what about my right to free speech?”
What about it? Speech freely and speech often!
“Or does that stop when I say that Nelson is a little bitch?”
Ohmyfrickengod! You’re really pushing it, now.
:-)
Black and white, sorry no grey matter @ 27
“What gives us the right to say that terri had to die, and yet not morally question her husband and his motives?.”
Ultimately, the courts decided to uphold Terri’s wishes. The decision to remove the tube was not Michaels. In fact, Michael had no option to reverse the court’s decision and have the feeding tube re-inserted. Don’t you feel a moral obligation to understand the facts in the case before spewing this bullshit?
BW@ 27 – I see that you doged the factual issues – fine. As to your hypocrisy comment you misunderstand me. I don’t think that Terri had to die, its not really my place to have an opinion either way.
There are only two authorities on this earth that can make that call and they are her husband and the law. Both decided the same way – the fact that every single reputable doctor who examined her agreed on the prognosis reaffirms the chances that they made the right call.
On a more personal note, I have watched several members of my extended family go through these agonizing choices with loved ones. It is a horrible experience and I would not dare to judge them, yet alone some guy that I only know what Fox News wants to tell me about him. Maybe it is different for you….
Nelson @ 11
“Isn’t the husband – to all of you – the most IMPORTANT member of the family?”
Just wondering, do they make an exception if the wife isn’t able to walk six paces behind the husband?
prr @ 13
Let me guess — Jesus appointed YOU as his spokesperson?? No doubt because you’re such a fine example of Christian love!! :D
prr @ 18
Nobody said he can’t. But where does the First Amendment say he can’t be criticized for making a jerk comment?
No Grey Matter @ 21
Please cite the Bible verse in which God authorized you to pass judgment on others? I thought He reserved the passing of judgment to Himself, and told you to “judge not.”
Ninid @ 31
I would not be quite as concerned if this man was an honorable man, but according to so many of these hospice nurses (some of them taking care of her for the last year and a half) taking a stand to try and stop her death, Michael has seemed extremely heartless toward his wife during their whole time with her.
It is a hard decision, one that if I were in his shoes I’d divorce her and let her parents make decisions on her behalf as long as I got to visit her still.
Hey Dubyasux @ 33
It looks like Jesus bestowed upon you the smiley face. All I got was a stinking ASCII emoticon. :-(
No Grey Matter @ 27
Terri died 15 years ago, and therein lies the logical fallacy of those who pretend the Terri Schiavo issue is about “killing” a “human being.” Terri didn’t die today. What passed away today was an unthinking and unfeeling biological organism like a tree or plant. Terri Schiavo has been dead for 15 years.
Dubyasux @ 21
Once again by your name calling I can tell I am “winning.”
I reserve the “judgement” for God, however I am questioning motives in order to understand what transpired as well as open people’s minds to the possibility that it may not have been a selfless act he performed.
Nindid @ 31
What do you expect? Wingers always have been judgmental bastards, not to mention hypocrites.
dj @ 37
OK you can have it for a while! Enjoy!
Dubyasux @38
“Terri died 15 years ago, and therein lies the logical fallacy of those who pretend the Terri Schiavo issue is about “killing” a “human being.” ”
Ok you have definitely lost now, so if you are still breathing, smiling, and are vocal, you can still be dead? guess that explains the condition of alot of Liberals being dead from the heart up.
Terri (May she now rest in peace) did not starve to death by her own wishes. She was a thriving disabled woman who WAS STARVED TO DEATH by a liberal court system. Even Death Row Felons are offered more justice than Terri Got. God save her soul and may those that killed her meet the Lord and her at the gates of justice. I feel for her wonderful parents! I am proud of Jessie Jackson, The Bush’s, the Churches and all those Americans who stood up to support her life. God rest her soul, for her life was precious, and taking it was just plain wrong. So very Wrong!
Dubyasux….
Don’t get me wrong, I am not a holy roller.
I was married outside of the church and have not been to mass on a regluar basis for years. So I am the last person to speak on behalf of Jesus/God/Buddha/whatever or whoever..
However, I understand where religion has a place in society and respect people right to have religion be recognized as a viable entity. Without it being looked at in a critical fashion as has become the fashion recently.
This pattern of attacking all thing religious and saying that this is the intent of the First Ammendment truly bothers me.
In my opion the overwhelming majority of americans have kept silent while our religious base has been picked away.
We need to start standing up for the rights of the religious in the country before the are erased.
You swear ona Bible in court and then deny that there is no place for religion in the same court house?
Terri’s desire was fulfilled today. She can now rest, body and soul. Michael Schiavo is an honorable man for seeing her wishes through to the very end, depsite all the attacks on his character.
BW@ 36 You say he is not an honorable man and you take this as your begining premise. But you simply can not know that. Is it possible, sure.
But let me give you another hypothetical. Your main hang up seems to be that he did not leagaly divorce his wife after she became brain dead. Why not?
Money? Nope, he was offered $10,000,000 to do just that.
Honor? Perhaps… could it be that he is honest in his belief that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive like this and really did express her horror at ‘living’ in that condition? He testified so in court as did others. The effect of divorcing her would bring him benefit, but would be a betrayal of his wife’s wishes as her distraught mother and father had proclaimed that they would keep her body alive no matter what regardless of Terri’s own wishes.
It is quite possible using the exact same facts with which you condemn him to build a case that makes him out to be the paragon of honor. You are reasoning backwards from what your desired result would be.
I don’t presume to judge what he should do or not do. Neither should you. You don’t know him and neither do I.
prr @ 44
AMEN! They twist and skew the lines until there is no black and white, there is no right and wrong, there is no God there is only secular believers who feel they have a right to do whatever they feel like.
Nindid @ 46
“You say he is not an honorable man and you take this as your begining premise. But you simply can not know that. Is it possible, sure.”
I do know that, he was married and Creating with another woman, there is no honor in that.
Nelson @20
James Madison was bestowed the honorary title of “Father of the Constitution” as opposed to the author. In this Constitution link, there are a number of titles bestowed, but authorship is not one of them.
Nelson @4
Rev. Senator Danforth
I think registration is required…
Nindid@23,
“Fact is, he had no monatary interest in her death and he spent the money he did get putting himself through nursing school so he could take care of her.” – Nindid
Really? What nursing school costs $1.6 million? I knew tuitions were up, but that seems excessive.
Terri’s desire was fulfilled today. She can now rest, body and soul. Michael Schiavo is an honorable man for seeing her wishes through to the very end, depsite all the attacks on his character.
What the right wingers don’t see is that she decided that she didn’t want to continue as she was, that was what the court ruled after hearing from all of the witnesses.
Black and white, sorry no grey matter @ 48
“… he was married and [pro]Creating with another woman, there is no honor in that.
So, you are suggesting that Michael “go forth and multiply” by procreating with Terri? While this may have been technically possible, I find it and the mentality it represents repulsive.
Mrs. Cynical may have been onto something a few threads back when she suggested that this whole issue was really about ultra-right wing wackos valuing women for their reproductive apparatus over their brains. . . .
My father, a Lutheran minister, long ago instructed his children that the separation of church and state was necessary not only to a functioning, healthy democracy, but to a functioning, healthy church. The separation of church and state protects religious belief and practice from the bureaucratic vapidity of government. The merging of religious doctrine with law inevitably spawns the same distrust for religion that many, if not most, of us feel for government. Merging religious doctrine with law sucks the life out of spirituality; complying with religious tenets because the law so requires does not make anyone a better Christian. So, those who would advocate breaching the wall between church and state necessarily advocate at the same time a diminishment of religion. I don’t need the Ten Commandments in the courthouse to feel God’s presence; saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance does not make me feel spiritual. Jamming religion down the throats of non-believers never made a Christian of anyone. Moreover, as a practical matter, if we are going to breach the wall between church and state because this nation of ours is, indeed, a “Christian nation”, whose brand of Christianity are we going to select as a basis for legislation? Surely, not that of the ranters from the right. As a practicing Christian, I can say that most of those supposedly speaking for Christianity with regard to the Terry Schiavo situation certainly did not reflect my Christian values. Love, nonjudgmentalism, and empathy for others are not consistent with the venomous ranting we heard from the rightwing on this issue.
dj @ 53
“So, you are suggesting that Michael “go forth and multiply” by procreating with Terri? While this may have been technically possible, I find it and the mentality it represents repulsive.”
If you can’t win twist their words isn’t that the liberal creedo?
If you try actually reading fully rather than dozing off part way through, you’d notice I was refering to the fact that he was married to Terri while making babies with another woman. The honorable thing would have been to divorce Terri and marry this woman, that is where I said he was not honorable.
proud leftist@54. Well spoken, a separating of the wheat from the chaff. The Great Master taught that by their words and works we shall know them and can spot the wolves in sheep’s clothing. By this discernement, the hypocrites stand out from those who are true to their faith and walk with the Master.
PRR@ALL. Utterly repulsive, obnoxious and disgusting.
B&W @48 – Again, you pick out one sentence and igonore the argument. Maybe you should try and deal with thoughts bigger then one line before criticizing others.
In any case, part of my argument was that he believed her to be brain dead. If she is gone, she is gone. Look, if science is able to keep my body alive without my brain, it does not make me alive.
If you believe that someone could remarry after the death of a spouse, then it is not adultery now is it? I understand that you may not want to believe what every doctor has said, but that is your problem not his.
VCRW @51 – You really should go read the facts before you post around here. The money was split into a trust fund that was solely for Schiavo’s care and has long since run out. 300k was awarded to Michael for the loss of his wife. He devoted a chunk of that money towards nursing school, and then after the parents demanded a share of it and they fell into arguing, he offered to give up the money if the parents would drop the case. They refused.
Later, he was offered $11,000,000 to walk away which he refused. Fox propaganda will not get you far in informed company. Come back when you have at least read the GAL report.
Black & white, sorry no grey matter @ 55
Nope. I read every word of your drivel.
I find you assertion that Michael “commited adultery” to be morally bankrupt. One interpertation of adultery is a violation of a contract between partners that mutually limits sexual and reproductive access (i.e. “breaking vows”). What the hell does it mean to “commit adultery” on a brain dead body in this sense of the word?
Of course “adultery” all depends on what brand of Christianity you are. Some brands feel that divorce followed by re-marriage is adultery as well. Apparently you don’t subscribe to this view, but who the fuck are you to impose your flavor of Christianity of people you don’t know?
Finally, some biblical scholars interpert “adultery” more figuratively—as any serious act of betrayal. But, it would appear that under this interpertation, Michael effectively did “divorce” Terri. On the life support decision, he turned control over to the courts and let them determine (1) Terri’s wishes and (2) what to do about them.
You and I don’t know all the shit that went down between Michael and the Shindlers, but I interpert the fact that Michael stuck around when he could have bailed (and bailed with an extra $10 million bucks at one point) to mean that he deeply believed he was doing what Terri wanted. You’re an asshole for seconding guessing him and calling him an adulterer.
dj @ 59
“You’re an asshole for seconding guessing him and calling him an adulterer.”
I guess if twisting my words doesn’t work you could always win the conversation by denial and name calling, yeah that should work.
B&W@ 60 – Pot, meet kettle… I realize I am a bit naïve for actually trying to have legitimate discussions, but would you at least not picking one sentence out of long, reasoned responses and then accuse others of ‘twisting’ words?
Nindid @ 61
As the saying turn about is fair play, I’ve watched you all try to trap consevatives with their words, if you don’t like it when it comes full circle try intelligently debating instead of denying fact and spinning words. I’ll play fair when there is a fair fight, but when there isn’t I’ll improvise and piss you off with the same bullheadedness and disdain you offer me.
B&W @62 – Have I done so? Several times in this conversation I have offered reasoned debate. Sorry you do not think this to be fair.
You have tended to respond only with one-liners that do not address the point and often come in with personal attacks. I value having differing opinions around, but if you are not interested in actually dealing with the issues then fine.
Black and White, 36
Those “hospices nurses” … all 1 of them … are liars and btw are making big bucks for TV appearances.
No Grey Matter @ 42
Smiling? Her doctors disagree with you, friend. This woman was brain dead after her cardiac arrest. Her body was a living biological organism but devoid of thought, feeling, or awareness. That’s not my opinion, that’s the findings of the court based on testimony of medical experts who examined Terri and know a lot more about PVS than you do.
No Grey Matter @ 48
I assume you equally condemn Newt Gingrich and all the other Republicans who did the same thing? Or is your criticism limited to adulterers you disagree with? Gingrich was shacking with a babe while his wife lay dying of cancer, how’s that for a role model from the (im)Moral Majority? Tom Delay, the great sanctimonious prick from Texas, pulled the plug on his own mother.
VCRW @ 51
$1.6 million? Where do you get your “facts,” from Faux News? Michael Schiavo got $300K from the lawsuit BEFORE attorney fees. Her parents litigated this case for 7 years including 6 trips to the U.S. Supreme Court. Michael’s 300K wouldn’t even begin to pay his legal expenses.
No Grey Matter @ 62
You want an intelligent debate? Try this on for size. We have the rule of law in this country, and the law is on Michael Schiavo’s side. If you don’t like the result, then lobby to change the law. This case was litigated up, down, and sideways, including 6 trips to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Schindlers lost in every court. And before you spout off about “liberal judges,” some of those judges were conservative Republicans.
Now let’s see what we have on the so-called “pro-life” side. Judges have to be guarded because of death threats against them. Michael Schiavo can’t show his face in public because of death threats against him. So much for the wingies’ so-called devotion to life. Apparently “pro-life” includes murdering people who disagree with you, if it serves the cause.
Now let’s look at how “conservative principles” worked in this case. We supposedly have a Constitution that divides power between three separate and co-equal branches of government, but a little thing like constitutional principle didn’t stop the executive (Bush) and Congress (dominated by the GOP) from interfering with the judicial process and trying to dictate the outcome of a pending legal case. Some of these so-called “conservatives” wanted Gov. Jeb to defy the court’s ruling and send the National Guard to impose their will by force and violence. Jeb, the only Republican in sight with an ounce of sense, said “no, I don’t have the power to do that.”
And now we have conservative asshole Tom DeLay — a criminal who is about to be indicted — demanding the impeachment of the judges who refused to kiss his ass. Now there’s a man who has NO respect for the Constitution.
Principles, my ass, the Far Right is nothing but a bunch of retrograde violent thugs who threaten and bully anyone who gets in their way, and who will stop at nothing (including violence) to dictate to the rest of us how we’re supposed to live. And you can bet these hypocrites won’t follow the rules they want to make for us. One set of rules for them, another set of rules for us.
The bright side is we don’t have to worry too much about meeting any of them in Heaven, because that’s not where they’re going when THEIR time comes.
Dubyasux @ 66
Did I ever say that Newt Gingrich was my role model? I am a conservative, I never said I was a died in the wool Republican. Oh you might want to get your facts straight It was Delay’s father not mother and it happened 17 years ago, and you wine about others not knowing what they are talking about. Here is a quote by his spokesman in reference to your echoing liberal attack “The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him.”
dj@59
Just what do you call someone who is married and is porking some hog.i guess you would say mr clean.get a life
I agree that Bush and congress stepped on alot of toes with their decision, however From what I have been hearing on the radio when court document become public it may paint a different picture of Judge Greer and why they tried to stop what could be a president in future cases.
in response to your comment: “Some of these so-called “conservatives” wanted Gov. Jeb to defy the court’s ruling and send the National Guard to impose their will by force and violence.”
Ann coulter put it best: “Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service). So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it’s against Americans. “
You can vote for your favorite asshole here:
http://www.democraticaction.or.....ce=r2email
And another thing,
Isn’t violating the constitution of the u.s. as much an impeachable offense as a blowjob?
A blowjob, I can relate to, violating the constitution, I cant.
Dubyasux @ 66
Ya, it was his father. He wanted to pull the plug on his mother, but she wasn’t sick.
Black & white, sorry no grey matter @ 69
‘Here is a quote by his spokesman in reference to your echoing liberal attack “The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him.”’
Why the hair-splitting? Terri could not eat like you and I do. Medical technology was required to deliver food to her body. A ventilator is no different—it is a medical technology to deliver air to a person’s lungs. Both are forms of life support. Cut off either one and a person dies.
This is a link to the story that the name calling self proclaimed intellectual was refering to. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....3332.shtml
Dj @ 73
Babies rely upon their mothers to eat should we allow mothers to cut them off, and Quadriplegics rely upon help to eat, deficate, etc. maybe they need to be cut off while we are setting a boundary on who is allowed to live. I heard you guys likening the Republicans to Nazis, isn’t it interesting that your party most resembles nazis and their early attempts to weed out the weaker (imperfect) humans.
thats totally bogus.
A person’s “self” is realized by conciousness.
If there is no cognizant awareness, no “self”, how is this even remotely similar, to a person that is conscious and aware of their environment, and capable of making decisions?
Twisting this, isn’t making your argument, its making you look less intelligent. Forcing your beliefs on people, is not right, and the right will have to come with grips on that fact on their own.
Let me ask you this, a very simple question. When they stopped feeding her, did she ask for food?
Using this for political gains, is what you all should have a problem with. I want to know if charges should be brought against the republicans, and both bushs’ to see if there were violations to the constitution.
hey @ 70
“Just what do you call someone who is married and is porking some hog.”
A Montanan? :-)
Sorry. . . couldn’t resist. Actually, hey, that is a fair question and I’ll give you an answer. I will assume that “porking some hog” means “having an affair”.
If the affair doesn’t affect me, my friends, or relatives, I say its none of my business—I probably don’t know enough about the circumstances to judge fairly. Otherwise. . . .
If the affair is mutually acceptable to the married couple, I’ve no problem whatsoever. This happens frequently enough both with couples living together and with couples who separated but never bothered to get divorced.
If the affair is a violation of trust and an implicit (or explicit) “marriage contract”, then I believe it is bad. People who make promises and commitments should uphold those commitments until both parties agree otherwise.
I realize this is not a “black and white” answer. Also, I know that many people believe marriage goes beyond a personal contract; it includes a larger contract with society and/or god(s). They can believe what they wish, but shouldn’t impose their views on me.
What about in circumstances similar to the Michael/Terri case? It is absurd, if not sheer lunacy, to think that “vows of marriage” somehow continue in the case of a permanently brain dead partner.
Black & white, sorry no grey matter @ 75
“Babies rely upon their mothers to eat should we allow mothers to cut them off, and Quadriplegics rely upon help to eat, deficate, etc. maybe they need to be cut off while we are setting a boundary on who is allowed to live.”
Babies and quadriplegics need air, too, are you suggesting we cut off their air? Of course not. In neither case do we seem to be dealing with a medical intervention for life support of a brain dead person. I know you aren’t that stupid, B&W. . . maybe we could raise the intellectual level of this discussion a bit. . . .
I heard you guys likening the Republicans to Nazis
Guilty! But, not most Republicans . . . just a select few. Seriously.
Dubyasux @ 68
Thanks! Great post . . . even with the line “Jeb, the only Republican in sight with an ounce of sense. . . .”
Kind of strange…Terri gets murdered…the Pope dies….I am not Catholic but that speakes volumes….
BW @ 71
“Ann coulter put it best: ‘Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard);'”
Huh??? What on earth is she talking about? Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock in 1957 so black children could attend the public school. And why are you quoting a liar like Coulter without fact-checking?
Chuck @ 80
No, just Chuckie speaking in riddles. I have NO idea what you’re trying to say.
It is giving me a strange feeling…that is all…considering he came out against the murder of her.
I have been in the desert…and very thirsty…dehydrated you might say. It was a bitch, even the shitty sulfer water was at least water! If I were to die that way…give me a shot to get it over with….that is me….
But, give me water instead…I will die in my own time…
Hey, chauvanistic pig@70: Your question was,”Just what do you call someone who is married and is porking some hog.” Answer: sorted. Your sorted pun was intended as a put-down of Mr. M. Schiavo and his girlfriend. You may end up in Hog Heaven and get BOINKED to death.
DJ @ 77: A Montanan? Rather sheepish of you, you know dam well they stump break cows.
Chuck @ 80
Sounds like a good novel. Get to work.
Don twister of reality @ all
Life as stated by mariam webster: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. spiritual existence transcending physical death. the period from birth to death.
“Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a physician, said that after reviewing videotapes of Schiavo, he was convinced that “the facts upon which this case was based are inadequate.” It was evident to him, he said, that Schiavo “does respond” to outside ***stimulus***.” http://frist.senate.gov/index.......Biography
Oh and do your eyes decieve you? We have all seen the video of her smiling when being kissed and her eyes following a balloon, as well as news reports that she vocalized to her parents while they were with her. To deny her life at that point is to deny the earth is round, also a proven fact in case you didn’t know.
Chee @ 56
What’s your problem?
Suddenly I have no right to freedom of speech?
Black & white, Sorry no Grey @ All
Thanks for being a voice of reason on this board.
You can speak with logic all day hear and all you’ll hear back is the twisting of your words to support some left wing Agenda.
sorry no grey @ anywhere
Viewing 4 seconds of video tape makes you an expert?
Now you can dispute 15 years of observation by specialists?
And prr@90
How does ignoring all sense of reason, make him a voice of reason?
More like a voice of blind allegiance to the extremist wackos.
prr@89. You freely commented, I freely commented. Opinions are like A-holes, everyone has one dum-dum.
Black & white, sorry no grey matter @ 88
On Life: Her body was alive, but her cerebral cortex was damaged and “desolved” (resorbed). The cerebral cortex is required for speech, sensory perception (hearing, vision, tactile, etc), emotion, complex though, and comprehension. Therefore she had no emotions, no ability to sense external stimuli, and no possibility of recovery. Her brain stem did survive some damage. The brain stem (a.k.a. the primitive or “reptilian” brain) is responsible for autonomic functions (like breathing). What you see on CNN as “response” is autonomic twitching—not unlike a chicken running around after its head has been chopped off.
Regarding Frist: If he was seriously making a medical diagnosis, then he committed medical malpractice. He never examined Terri (or even her full medical report), and he is not qualified to make such a diagnosis, let alone announce his “diagnosis” to the world. Frist is a heart and lung surgeon.
“Oh and do your eyes decieve you? We have all seen the video of her smiling when being kissed and her eyes following a balloon”
I saw this video footage for the first time 2 weeks ago (I rarely watch TV). I definitely understand your emotional response to that (highly selected) footage. But, as has been amply pointed out in this thread and previous ones, she has been tested, poked, prodded, examined by multiple medical specialists, imaged, and subjected to experimental therapies. All evidence points to permanent loss of cognitive ability, though, feeling, emotion. She is brain dead. The medical diagnoses have been challenged in multiple courts and upheld—every time. Sorry . . . it IS a tragedy.
Diggindude @ 91
Great, demonstrate how anything he has said is ignoring the sense of reason?
Chee @ 92
Um…. Fuck off.
In post 93 I meant
All evidence points to permanent loss of cognitive ability, thoughT, feeling, emotion.
Geez. . . dropping a T really changed the meaning :-)
prr @ 94
“”Oh and do your eyes decieve you? We have all seen the video of her smiling when being kissed and her eyes following a balloon, as well as news reports that she vocalized to her parents while they were with her.””
This is ignoring reason. This has been proven false.
She is not responding, she has no cognitive senses.
“””Life as stated by mariam webster: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. spiritual existence transcending physical death.”””
By this definion, she does not have life.
Therefore, again, ignoring reason.
Diggindude
I’m not caught up in the drama of the news stories.
However, denying one food, water, or even air for that matter until death is just plain cruel, regardless of what state they are in.
If you are such a fan of this. How would you respond to this same method being applied to death row inmates?
Prr,
Again, how does this apply?
Are you talking about brain dead death row inmates?
By ALL means, PULL THE PLUG!
Denying a concious responsive person food and water, I would consider “starving a person”.
Disconnecting a feeding tube, from a non responsive, severely brain damaged patient, who is completely unaware of her own existence, is NOT what I would consider “starving a person”.
I’m not happy with the way this person died. I would rather, she had the option for some type of lethal injection.
The laws need to be changed, to allow people below a minimal level, access to life ending drugs.
Not everyone has to agree to this practice.
It is basic human decency, to let go of a person if that is their wish. No one, regardless WHO they are, has the right to keep a person in this condition, alive against their wishes.
No one. It should be a crime to interfere with the final wishes of a person.
I respect final wishes, exponentially more, than religious, or political opportunistic interference.
Diggindude,
Their is clearly a huge area of doubt on whether this would have been Terri Schiavo’s wish.
Debating that point is just useless.
I am aware there is speculation. The extent of the speculation, has increased the doubt, to some. I am not just going by michael schiavo’s word.
I am using the courts decision, the fact the parents had no idea what she wanted, the fact the parents had another agenda, the opinion of the american public, as to what they would prefer if they were in this condition, and my own inner voice, which tells me, this is not life.
This is torture in a prison 24/7.
My instinct tells me, given the opportunity, she would pull her own feeding tube.
Yes,
However, that is not your decision nor should it have been a Judges decision or even a 7 year delayed decision by her husband..
For myself, both my wife and I have put our living wills together. Had Terri & Michael done this, we would not be having this discussion.
Ultimately, there would have been no hran done to have her family take over as care givers.
My only hope is, for all of you out there who have this opinion that this was the right thing to do, that you get to make this same decision with a loved one.
I have a feeling that our liberal views on this will change drastically.
D-sux, thought you might want a little more history before saying stuff like……
“Huh??? What on earth is she talking about? Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock in 1957 so black children could attend the public school. And why are you quoting a liar like Coulter without fact-checking?”
Well we could say the same about you.
Faubus, Orval (ôr’vəl fô’bəs) , 1910–94, governor of Arkansas (1955–67), b. Combs, Ark. A schoolteacher, he served in World War II and after the war became Arkansas’s state highway commissioner. Elected to the governorship after a runoff, Faubus initially pursued a liberal course in office but to combat his political opponents who were staunch segregationists, he adopted a hard-line civil-rights position. In 1957, Faubus gained national attention when he called out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, but he was eventually forced to withdraw the Guard. After rioting broke out, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to Little Rock and put the National Guard under federal command in order to ensure the integration of the school. Faubus’s political expediency resulted in his repeated reelection as governor but also prevented him from moving into the national political arena. In 1970, 1974, and 1986 he sought reelection as governor of Arkansas but was unsuccessful in each attempt at a political comeback, the last time losing to Bill Clinton.
Prr thank you for having a concience, there are many people on this blog lacking heart and the common sense God gave a catepillar.
Sorry the above comment was for D-sux @ 81
hey Bf nice work I guess Ann isn’t as dumb as he looks.
dubyasux@81. Looks who has returned from exile (post 107) and has chosen to be reincarnated as Chee. Impersonating is a compliment. ;-)
all of you wingnuts should get a life. Life is too short as it is. And you and your ilk are only making things worse with your lies and ideology. The true answer “GET A LIFE” This means you..christmass goost, acidvinegar, chuckiecheese, etc…and especially the IDIOT MR/MS Cynical
and especially YOU PRR (perpetually retarded realist)
jpgee @ 110
keyword “realist” not socially backwards daydreamer
An interesting poll from Zogby, relating to Terri Schiavo
Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo
Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.
The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri’s case, 43 percent say “the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube” while just 30 percent disagree.
Another Zogby question his directly on Terri’s circumstances.
“If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water,” the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
“From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides,” Concerned Women for America’s Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side “believes Terri’s life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo’s actions as merciful, and appropriate.”
More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, “because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water.”
The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri’s starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.
“When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place,” respondents were asked.
Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.
Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient’s family has a dispute over the care.
“According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we’re trying to accomplish,” she said.
The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.
When asked directly about Terri’s case and told the her estranged husband Michael “has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her” 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri’s parents while 37 percent disagreed.
(4/1/2005)
– By Steven Ertelt, Life News